Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating and appellate orders and held that the imported stainless steel was not liable to confiscation nor to penalty under s.112(a) FA. The Tribunal found the Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force on the shipment date (27.01.2017), and therefore the obligation to affix the BIS mark did not attach to goods exported before the Order's commencement; subsequent filing of the bill of entry did not retrospectively impose that requirement. The Revenue's contention of the appellant's alleged prior knowledge was rejected as legally immaterial to liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
